Re: Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in heavyweight boxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by KidDynamite

Wlad is the hardest hitting, fastest hands heavyweight in history according to Klit fans ... and he can KO prime Ali, Louis, Tyson, Foreman and Lewis all in the same night according to Klit fans

He's also the most athletic with the best foot work ever as well

Pretty high praise for a guy who can't even throw an uppercut and gets KOed by Ross freakin Puritty

Tyson got waxed by one of the worst contenders he fought. Lewis fell to Rahman, Patterson to Ingo, Larry Holmes to a damn light heavyweight, good as he was.

Point it, everybody loses at some point, to somebody, and often times, not even somebody all that awesome. It's boxing. What's more, its heavyweight boxing. Meaning it's big effing dudes trying to kill each other with gloved fists. **** just plain happens.

He's not the most athletic. He's got good footwork, though, and pretty fast feet. He's got fast hands and one helluva right hand.

These are just facts, as I've felt em. Being a Klitschko "fan" has little to do with it. He's hit me, I've hit him. I feel qualified to clear up what I see as not giving credit where it is due. Dog his resume.

Re: Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in heavyweight boxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

Dude knows how to bend his knees

But, seriously. I've been in there with most of the big shots who were active before Wlad took control. He's just as good as they are, worse in a few areas, and better in a few.

He'd hold up to anybody. If I'm on his nuts for thinking so, so be it, but he did to me what a prime, peaked Lennox Lewis and a very formidable, if old, George Foreman could not. (Throw in Holyfield, Tua, and an amateur Bowe in there, if you'd like.)

He's pretty darn good, if you ask me.

All in all, who of the guys you've shared a ring with impressed you the most? I don't really care much if it's off topic, because this stuff is fascinating. I feel a bit jealous sometimes, honestly, but then I'm like, "Nah, nah. I'm fine with not being hit by them."

Re: Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in heavyweight boxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by the cobra

All in all, who of the guys you've shared a ring with impressed you the most? I don't really care much if it's off topic, because this stuff is fascinating. I feel a bit jealous sometimes, honestly, but then I'm like, "Nah, nah. I'm fine with not being hit by them."

My thoughts too.

I'll live vicariously through Magna and take his word for what he says.

Re: Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in heavyweight boxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

I have no problem disregarding (I wouldn't say 'overruling' ) the Ring rankings, just as you don't have a problem disregarding their edicts on appointing new champions.
I find it a little contradictory that you'd call them the "recognized" and "authoritative rankings body" yet you won't recognize the name they put as the top under the heading "CHAMPION : ".

But I guess we all have our different take.

I agree. But in the years after a champion retires, a new fighter can - and often does - emerge as the new champion by establishing himself as the premier fighter and consistently defending that claim.

--You got me on that contradictory notion. That's a good point. I would say that the recognized body is recognized so long as it is reasonable. Now that of course, carries a risk of being arbitrary. But there are other examples I could offer where The Ring (pre-Collins) failed to recognized the result of a 1 vs. 2 and instead recognized someone else and so were corrected.

The rise of the racketeers demand that we tighten up the criteria in the face of their chaos. And I fail to understand how or why some accept a fighter avoiding the #2 and still earning recognition.

Re: Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in heavyweight boxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

I think it's as sound of a system that could be implemented in the sport, but the idea that Robinson should've never been Champion really doesn't sit well with me because even more importantly than the "No. 1 vs No. 2" fighting for a vacated title is that the Champion who dropped it was/is fighting the division's top contenders on a consistent basis. If not, then it's a fraudulent reign and the 'Lineal Champion' loses all value and worth, without question.

Granted, Cochrane served in the Navy for two years in 1943-44, just who the hell did he defend the title against upon winning it from Zivic in 1941 to losing it to Servo in 1945? He didn't defend against one single, solitary welterweight contender over the entirety of his "reign" in between winning and losing it? Sure, he lost to Zivic in a non-title rematch, and lost it to Servo who retired soon thereafter... Did I mention Robinson went 4-0 against these two over the same time period? In addition to beating Henry Armstrong, Jackie Wilson, Tommy Bell twice, George Costner, Izzy Jannazzo four times, Jimmy McDaniels, Norman Rubio, Tony Motisi, Joe Curcio, Sammy Angott... All - mostly highly - rated Welterweights... Hell, throw in LaMotta four times and Dellicurti who were Middleweights Robinson took coming in under the 147 limit. This is before The RING Magazine - Our Legit, Primary Rankings Body - even recognized him Champion. What the hell is going on here? Time to make an exception, that.

Slow down, man. It isn't that bad. Robinson is recognized in mine. The standard for recognition from the first Queensberry bout until 1920 is one, from 1920-circa 1963 is another, and from 1963 forward, yet another. To use the same standard for the three major eras would be dim-witted.

Re: Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in heavyweight boxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Slow down, man. It isn't that bad. Robinson is recognized in mine. The standard for recognition from the first Queensberry bout until 1920 is one, from 1920-circa 1963 is another, and from 1963 forward, yet another. To use the same standard for the three major eras would be dim-witted.

So since the proliferation of belts would you say every one of your champions is there by virtue of 1v2?

I have no problem with your system by the way, I just don't think it is historically justifiable to rewrite history and dismiss certain championship claims.

Your way is ideal and it's unfortunate it isn't the way today but the reality is it isnt.

I loved your essay btw, I don't agree with it but I liked the cut of your jib.

Re: Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in heavyweight boxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Slow down, man. It isn't that bad. Robinson is recognized in mine. The standard for recognition from the first Queensberry bout until 1920 is one, from 1920-circa 1963 is another, and from 1963 forward, yet another. To use the same standard for the three major eras would be dim-witted.

Re: Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in heavyweight boxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

So since the proliferation of belts would you say every one of your champions is there by virtue of 1v2?

Yes, though there were a few difficulties because The Ring failed to recognized Jr. divisions. It's as consistent as hell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I have no problem with your system by the way, I just don't think it is historically justifiable to rewrite history and dismiss certain championship claims.

Your way is ideal and it's unfortunate it isn't the way today but the reality is it isnt.

I loved your essay btw, I don't agree with it but I liked the cut of your jib.

I'm the last person who wants to tell a champion that he isn't. As far as he knows, he is and he bled for it. Those bleeping mutha bleepers who ruined the successions for 50 years are to blame and I wish they all had one neck.

I distinguish one from the other to let the belted champions call themselves champions and be called champions. I think that the term has been compromised anyway but can leave that unsaid so as not to hurt anyone. I call the true champions something different and think it works.

Re: Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in heavyweight boxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

Tyson got waxed by one of the worst contenders he fought. Lewis fell to Rahman, Patterson to Ingo, Larry Holmes to a damn light heavyweight, good as he was.

Point it, everybody loses at some point, to somebody, and often times, not even somebody all that awesome. It's boxing. What's more, its heavyweight boxing. Meaning it's big effing dudes trying to kill each other with gloved fists. **** just plain happens.

He's not the most athletic. He's got good footwork, though, and pretty fast feet. He's got fast hands and one helluva right hand.

These are just facts, as I've felt em. Being a Klitschko "fan" has little to do with it. He's hit me, I've hit him. I feel qualified to clear up what I see as not giving credit where it is due. Dog his resume.